Hard not to see wehre the debate is in this latest update from Hugo Chavez, but I think it's safe to say this is going to get a lot of sympathy from Americans right now.

Maybe not the politicians (or not all of them at least,) but I can see a lot of jobless/homeless/penniless U.S. Citizens snickering at Chavez's

plans to turn Los Roques, an idyllic archipelago of deserted beaches of perfect white sand with swaying palms and dazzling coral reefs, into a state-run getaway for his country's urban poor.

The measure may turn out to be one of Mr Chavez's least controversial nationalisations. Los Roques was declared a protected area in 1972 and it is unclear why local authorities permitted any private properties on the islands, effectively allowing the archipelago to become one of Latin America's most exclusive beach destinations. Lying 95 miles off Venezuela's northern coast, Los Roques is a paradise for bird watchers, snorkellers and scuba-divers.

Since assuming office in 1999, Mr Chavez has overseen widescale nationalisations in Venezuela, including cement makers, steel mills and large swathes of land belonging to international corporations but deemed idle by the government.

He has also forced some of the world's largest energy companies to renegotiate drilling contracts for the country's highly-prized oil fields. Venezuela now has the largest crude reserves in the world, according to the president.

However; what's not being taken into effect here is the person or peoples in the homes that he plans on seizing. While I can see a lack of sympathy from U.S. Citizens towards these homeowners/hotel owners/business owners, I question the (hypothetical) ethical response that will be shown.

If someone comes into great wealth from hardwork and gainful employment, why is it their responsibility to give up their livelihood to the government? You'd think enforced higher-taxes would be the way to go, but taking their property?